THE ORIGIN OF MAN

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18421, 30 June 1925, Page 11

THE ORIGIN OF MAN

• TO THI MKTOR 0? "THE TBtSS.'' gjr.—l 6 eo "Watchman" has cited me to appear. I am feeling fit, havine spent tho wet Sunday in betl reading, the four books of Motes. I have two old men who are plyinsr me with Bible "say 5.0.5.." and I w.iuted to see what Moses had to say about- "familiar spirits." He mentions them casually with maty other details that iuv;pet no attention. The modern woman would ' have to civo nn the idea of "phis fours" oil tlie eoll links or anywhere else if we still strictly observed the Mosaic injunctions. I did not read "Anglican's" letter as an "att-vjl;'' so much as a plea that, the Christians' faith should l:-e more elastic. Mr Gladstone also said that the evolution of _sniritual truth was the most i.inportp.nt 'of all modern thought movements. If ."Watchman" wants to some "siikpestions on the question of man's. •destiny'* lie should read Sniritualistic literature. —Yours, etc., PETER TROLOYT:.

TO Tlif. T.DITOF. OF ''THE TT.KSS." Sir.—'''Anglican.'' in your issue of the '26 th sa.vs of Br. Barnes: "That tHis prelate should have publicly stated his rejection of the infallibility of the Book of Genesis is just what it, cught (o be, and wlnif it must be sooner or later with everyone, unless progress of learning ceases." 1 should be. sorry to think that "Anglican'' roprescts anything like a numerous minority that is only too ready to accept anything that Modernism mav assert. And to judge rashly that the Bible is wrong u: 1 his simply because Science to-uay may assert this or that to be a fact, whilst to-morrow it modifies, recants, or denies the .same.

The pathway of every . brunch of .Science is strewn with, out-of-date text., books, at. one time regarded an the standard work on Science, but judged as so-| full of inaccuracies and wrong conclusions, etc., etc., as to be valueless nowadays. How is Genesis wrong' Baa "Anglican"' also failed, to.realise that Genesis contains true accounts of the creation-of Mm?. In Chapter 1. v..'2<\ there is the fn>t creation of Adam , or men. Very primitive man. it may be; and there is not a word in the original to contradict, this. Then, in v. 27 a different word is used: '"'And God created the .Adamite in His own image." 'l'hon tho whole of chap. 2, from r. 7, is taken up with a more detailed account of the forming of tins Adamite. Thousands of years may have elapsed, and T believe did elapse, between the events in verses 26 and 27. If "Anglican" had ever read MeCauseland's book, "Adam and tho Adamite," published years ago, yet a bonk that has never been successfully refuted, he would not have been so readyto ' swallow "Modernist's" hold assertions that Genesis is all wrong. May I also suggest to "Anglican" that lie reads- Kiniis' book on "Moses and Geology," a book written to show the wonderful scientific knowledge of the •writer of the first chapter of Genesis in placing in exactly the right sequence all'the different * stages of our sun and planetary system from nebularity to the cooling down of our globe to bo fit for human habitation. Perhaps "Anglican" has not yet realised how the evolution theory has become more and more discredited of late- years, and how only those behind the times stick to the theory in. all its erudeness. Names of several eminent naturalists could be mentioned who have either rejected the hypothesis altogether, or else have so modified it that it new has very slight resemblance to the original. To quote just oue name, Br. Etheride, of the British Museum, has said: "In all this great Museum there is not a particle of -evidence of transmutation of species."—-Yours, etc., ; ANGLICAN -No'; "2. "